In his farewell address to the nation in 1796, President George Washington provided what has proven to be a remarkably insightful warning about the influence of political parties. These parties, Washington penned, “serve to organize faction, to give it an artificial and extraordinary force; to put, in the place of the delegated will of the nation, the will of a party, often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community.”

More than 200 years later, Washington’s words are startlingly prescient. With the smoke clearing from last fall’s fractious elections, and a contentious Congress in session, lawmakers have returned to old habits with their abysmal track record of policy gridlock. Now is the time to work toward essential reforms that correct the dangers our forefathers warned against.

It has become increasingly popular and justified to criticize the performance of Congress over the last 20 years, even as the basic architecture of our electoral process fuels polarization among members with partisan-driven closed primaries and gerrymandering/redistricting.

Largely left unaddressed is the issue of primaries. Face it, the current political system rewards those who can best articulate their cause and support their outer fringes — not those who are willing to solve our problems together. The latter is what makes a democracy thrive.

If you look at Colorado’s recent history, we are an example of a state that can at times act as a bridge between parties and issues at cross purposes. And while not perfect, at least the leadership of strong pragmatists, well respected within their parties, has seen us resolve difficult issues. We cannot, though, count on the current class of leaders. We need systemic reform.

Our founding fathers never intended to disenfranchise a huge segment of the voting public, namely the centrist one. In Colorado, independent voters — a full one-third of the electorate — are effectively disenfranchised and shut out of the process to select final candidates. Instead, the two final candidates are picked by partisan purists. This reality discourages many high quality centrist candidates from running for office in the first place.

It’s difficult to dispute that the divisive nature of politics in the U.S. is preventing necessary work from getting done. Our system is also out of step with the changing face of American political parties. Since 2008, the number of independent voters has continued to grow significantly at the expense of the two major parties.

A dysfunctional election system results in a dysfunctional government. Colorado’s system of “closed primaries” is an example of how our nation’s guiding principles of an inclusive democratic process have been hamstrung by policies that effectively restrict participation and divide the process.

The state legislature debated the subject of closed primaries in 2011 in the form of legislation. A measure was introduced to allow unaffiliated or “independent” voters to cast a ballot in the state’s Republican and Democratic primaries, while still maintaining their independent status. It was offered as a way to extend participation in the democratic process to voters who might hold views that cross party lines. It was unceremoniously struck down by opponents in the legislature.

Colorado, unfortunately, is not unique in its plight. Today, more than half of the states maintain a closed primary system. However, opportunities abound to move toward better governance and a system that promotes heterogeneity at the local level — allowing similar changes to thrive and flourish at a national level.

Some argue that opening primaries to unaffiliated voters leaves parties vulnerable to dilution and manipulation, but there are practical solutions to addressing this argument, such as requiring independent voters to declare their intentions early to vote in one of the primaries and restricting members of the opposite party from casting votes. In addition, historical data show virtually no examples that support the alleged concerns in states that have had open primaries for years, while on the other hand, thousands of examples of the current system show disenfranchisement of centrist voters.

Some claim that an open primary system would be inherently unconstitutional, because it would force them to allow outsiders to choose their candidates, thus violating their freedom of association. This is easily rebutted. No one is contesting the right of party members to associate, but the right to access a public ballot is a public good that can and should be structured to facilitate democracy.

These arguments aside, it is incumbent upon policymakers to really evaluate the state of our government and the process by which we are arriving at the loggerheads found in the nation’s capital and capitals across this great country. Is doing nothing really an option?

Opening primaries to independent voters is not only important to the prospect of electing an effective Congress, it’s also what our Founding Fathers would expect in the name of a representative democracy. With a burgeoning federal deficit and lawmakers seemingly unable to move past party ideology to implement change, it’s time that we take important steps toward better and more inclusive governance.